My take on hubble redshift and the CMBR

Italy
July 7, 2007 3:47am CST
I'll admit starting out that I hate BB simply because I find it counterintuitive. If it didn't have Hubble Redshift, and CMBR, how strong would the theory still be? In all my objections to the BB, I've found the need to come up with some kind of alternative explanation for the observations that lead to it. How correct would the basic idea behind this counter-theory be? Any glaring flaws? Redshift Perhaps the oscillation between electrical and magnetic fields that occurs inside a photon are not a perfect exchange of energy. After a while, a third kind of charge begins to build up. When it becomes strong enough, this charge causes the photon to emit a second photon of much longer wavelenth. This causes the original photon to drop to a longer wavelenth as well. CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) This is just starlight from distant stars, so far out that all of the light has degraded down to the blackbody radiation wavelenths. Part of this rationalization becomes easier if we assume that blackbody radiation doesn't suffer as much from the effects that cause redshift.
1 response
FireHorse
@FireHorse (293)
• United States
1 Dec 07
Interesting idea although I've never heard of any evidence of a photon generating another photon. This doesn't explain objects recently discovered even further out which are blue shifted (moving toward us). The lack of proof for a steady state universe goes something like this ... If the universe is infinitely large with stars and galaxies randomly situated throughout then no matter where you look you will see a photon. This would mean the sky should be a shimmering mass of white light at night, not black. Since the sky is black the implication is we are seeing to the edge of the universe and can't see beyond because our space-time doesn't exist beyond it's edge.